Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
speedometer increments
220 views
Skip to first unread message
badgolferman
May 7, 2012, 7:28:36 AM5/7/12
to
This is a picture of my speedometer.
http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/7775/photonut.jpg
If the needle was pointing at the first tick mark after 60 MPH how fast
would I be going?
How about if it was between the 70 MPH and the tick mark prior to that?
http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/7775/photonut.jpg
If the needle was pointing at the first tick mark after 60 MPH how fast
would I be going?
How about if it was between the 70 MPH and the tick mark prior to that?
NM5K
May 7, 2012, 8:37:24 AM5/7/12
to
On 5/7/2012 6:28 AM, badgolferman wrote:
> This is a picture of my speedometer.
> http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/7775/photonut.jpg
>
> If the needle was pointing at the first tick mark after 60 MPH how fast
> would I be going?
62.5 mph according to that scale..
> This is a picture of my speedometer.
> http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/7775/photonut.jpg
>
> If the needle was pointing at the first tick mark after 60 MPH how fast
> would I be going?
>
> How about if it was between the 70 MPH and the tick mark prior to that?
68.75 mph according to that scale..
> How about if it was between the 70 MPH and the tick mark prior to that?
My 05 Corolla does not have marks between the numbers..
But I use my GPS readout for the exact mph..
http://home.comcast.net/~disk100/dash1.jpg
Tom
May 7, 2012, 8:48:27 AM5/7/12
to
C. E. White
May 7, 2012, 10:14:29 AM5/7/12
to
"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0hxsx3...@reader.albasani.net...
accurate enough that the 0.5 is significant. I'd treat the first mark like
63 but assume it is not particularly accurate. Most cars have speedometers
that deliberately don't read low (i.e., the speed shown by the speedometer
is -0 / + 5% of the actual speed), so in reality, I'd assume the first mark
past 60 would represent an actual speed somewhere between 59 and 63 mph
(assuming OE tires). The first mark before 70 (the 67.5 mph mark) would be a
speed somewhere between 65 and 68 mph (again assuming OE tires). So if you
are halfway between the "67.5 mark" and the "70 mark" I'd guess your speed
would be somewhere between 65 and 69 mph (again, assuming OE tires).
If you want a better answer, get a good GPS. I've checked all my recent cars
with several different GPSs and all the speedometers read slightly low to
dead on, with some variation depending on the speed (i.e., might be dead on
at 60, but read slightly low at 70, etc.). Once you change tires, the
accuracy will change as well. If you stick with the OE size, the change will
be very small. If you change to a different size the change can be very
significant.
I don't really think you can cut things as fine as your post indicates you
want to. There are many variable affecting the speedometer readout. And
remember the speedometer damps out small fast changes in speed (in other
words, it averages the speed over small time periods). Say you set the
cruise at 60 on flat level ground - the speedometer might seem to stay
steady on 60, but in reality, your speed is probably constantly shifting by
small amounts around 60 (say 59.5 to 60.5). So, I'd never trust a
speedometer reading (or even a GPS) to be more accurate than +/- 1 mph (and
that is likely optimistic).
Ed
Ed
Jeff Strickland
May 7, 2012, 12:08:04 PM5/7/12
to
60 and 80, 62.5, 65.0, 67.5, 70 (unmarked but larger than the other ticks)
72.5, 75.0, 77.5, and 80 (marked and larger than the other ticks).
I'm confused by your confusion.
badgolferman
May 7, 2012, 12:53:24 PM5/7/12
to
divisions. There are always either 4 (2 mph increments) or 1 (5 mph
increments). I think this is silly to have it like that. Who wants to
know if they are going 62.5 mph or 67.5 mph?
Asbjørn
May 7, 2012, 12:58:51 PM5/7/12
to
and load, that should be 62.5 and 68.75 mph,
but in practice probably about 8 - 10 % less like in mine, that is about 57
and 63 mph.
The best way to find out is by using a GPS, may be your phone has one?
The speedometer is not a precision instrument. The bias is dependent of make
of car and make and dimensions of tires.
Asbjørn
C. E. White
May 7, 2012, 1:17:06 PM5/7/12
to
news:xn0hxt5m...@reader.albasani.net...
It will be easier to swallow if you don't think of the speedometer as a
precision speed measuring device. I suspect the location of the tick marks
was decreed by the industrial designer and not an engineer. Since most speed
limits are in 5 mph increments, learn to ignore the intermediate marks (the
10x + "2.5" and "7.5" marks) and focus on the ones that matter 20, 25, 30,
35, 40, 45, 50, 55, etc.....
Most car speedomters are not precise or accurate, so treat the reading as a
good estimate and go from there.
Ed
precision speed measuring device. I suspect the location of the tick marks
was decreed by the industrial designer and not an engineer. Since most speed
limits are in 5 mph increments, learn to ignore the intermediate marks (the
10x + "2.5" and "7.5" marks) and focus on the ones that matter 20, 25, 30,
35, 40, 45, 50, 55, etc.....
Most car speedomters are not precise or accurate, so treat the reading as a
good estimate and go from there.
Ed
badgolferman
May 7, 2012, 1:44:27 PM5/7/12
to
from the sheer idiocy of that particular design. It still baffles me
what they were thinking when someone signed off on that.
Michael
May 7, 2012, 2:11:45 PM5/7/12
to
On May 7, 10:44 am, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> C. E. White wrote:
>
> >"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Saves a few pennies per car on ink? =)
wrote:
> C. E. White wrote:
>
> >"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:xn0hxt5m...@reader.albasani.net...
> >>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> >>>"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
micky
May 7, 2012, 3:31:34 PM5/7/12
to
On Mon, 7 May 2012 16:53:24 +0000 (UTC), "badgolferman"
<REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
>>
>>"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:xn0hxsx3...@reader.albasani.net...
>>>This is a picture of my speedometer.
>>>http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/7775/photonut.jpg
>>>
>>>If the needle was pointing at the first tick mark after 60 MPH how
>>>fast would I be going?
>>>
>>>How about if it was between the 70 MPH and the tick mark prior to
>>>that?
>>
>>
>>By my calculations, each tick mark is 2.5mph. So, there are 8 marks
>>between 60 and 80, 62.5, 65.0, 67.5, 70 (unmarked but larger than the
>>other ticks) 72.5, 75.0, 77.5, and 80 (marked and larger than the
>>other ticks).
>>
>>I'm confused by your confusion.
>
>I have never seen a speedometer with three tick marks between major
>divisions.
I think most of my cars, GM and Chrysler products before this one,
<REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
>>
>>"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:xn0hxsx3...@reader.albasani.net...
>>>This is a picture of my speedometer.
>>>http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/7775/photonut.jpg
>>>
>>>If the needle was pointing at the first tick mark after 60 MPH how
>>>fast would I be going?
>>>
>>>How about if it was between the 70 MPH and the tick mark prior to
>>>that?
>>
>>
>>By my calculations, each tick mark is 2.5mph. So, there are 8 marks
>>between 60 and 80, 62.5, 65.0, 67.5, 70 (unmarked but larger than the
>>other ticks) 72.5, 75.0, 77.5, and 80 (marked and larger than the
>>other ticks).
>>
>>I'm confused by your confusion.
>
>I have never seen a speedometer with three tick marks between major
>divisions.
have had tcks between the numbers, but I'm not sure anymore. Next
time I'm in a junk yard, maybe I'll checik.
>There are always either 4 (2 mph increments) or 1 (5 mph
>increments). I think this is silly to have it like that. Who wants to
cost so much more to put an extra mark in each section?
>know if they are going 62.5 mph or 67.5 mph?
major highways. Well, I don't remember if interstates have them -- I
think they do --, but state highways often do, sometimes a short green
and white sign maybe even every tenth of a mile. Sometimes a short
cement post with the numbers formed into the cement. This goes
faster with a passenger helping, because when I'm alone, I keep
getting distracted by the need to steer the car, etc. First I'd
check the odometer. I did this 2 or 3 decades ago and it was
accurate to within 20 or 40 feet over 5280 feet. That is, when
odometer number changed or was the same height as the other numbers, I
saw the mile post maybe 30 feet in front of me. Hard to tell at 60
mph, but clearly, pretty good. Once the odometer is calibrated, you
won't need the posts to calibrate t he speedometer. I think that was
accurate to less than one mph. After that, I sort of lost interest,
and I haven't checked my new car or one or two of the preiious cars..
C. E. White
May 7, 2012, 3:34:05 PM5/7/12
to
news:xn0hxt6z...@reader.albasani.net...
> There's no doubt speedometers are not exact, but that doesn't take away
> from the sheer idiocy of that particular design. It still baffles me
> what they were thinking when someone signed off on that.
I assume the thinking was it looked a heck of a lot better than have a big
open space between tick marks every 5 mph or having it really busy with tick
marks every 1 mph. To me it seems very reasonable. You have tick marks every
five mph where you really need them. I look at the 2.5 and 7.5 tick marks as
half way between important points and things aren't messy with a bunch of
tick marks that are meaningless. Think like this - if you are alittle over
the 10x tick mark, you are doing 10x+1 mph. If you are a little under the
10x+2.5 tick mark you are doing 10x+3 mph. A little under the 10X+5 tick
mark and you are doing 10x+4mph, etc...... You can probably come close to
the figuring out actual 1 mph increment without having a dial with so many
marks it it unreadable. If the speedometer dial was smaller, then they
probably would only have 5 mph increments. I can't imagine one big enough
that 1 mph increments would be useful.
What would you like - just 5 mph increments or 1 mph increments? Which looks
better:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/17/speedometer1.jpg/
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/269/speedometer2p.jpg/
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/256/speedometer3.jpg/
To my eye the original looks best and is the most useful.
Ed
> There's no doubt speedometers are not exact, but that doesn't take away
> from the sheer idiocy of that particular design. It still baffles me
> what they were thinking when someone signed off on that.
open space between tick marks every 5 mph or having it really busy with tick
marks every 1 mph. To me it seems very reasonable. You have tick marks every
five mph where you really need them. I look at the 2.5 and 7.5 tick marks as
half way between important points and things aren't messy with a bunch of
tick marks that are meaningless. Think like this - if you are alittle over
the 10x tick mark, you are doing 10x+1 mph. If you are a little under the
10x+2.5 tick mark you are doing 10x+3 mph. A little under the 10X+5 tick
mark and you are doing 10x+4mph, etc...... You can probably come close to
the figuring out actual 1 mph increment without having a dial with so many
marks it it unreadable. If the speedometer dial was smaller, then they
probably would only have 5 mph increments. I can't imagine one big enough
that 1 mph increments would be useful.
What would you like - just 5 mph increments or 1 mph increments? Which looks
better:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/17/speedometer1.jpg/
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/269/speedometer2p.jpg/
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/256/speedometer3.jpg/
To my eye the original looks best and is the most useful.
Ed
micky
May 7, 2012, 5:12:13 PM5/7/12
to
On Mon, 7 May 2012 15:34:05 -0400, "C. E. White"
<cewh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:xn0hxt6z...@reader.albasani.net...
>
>> There's no doubt speedometers are not exact, but that doesn't take away
>> from the sheer idiocy of that particular design. It still baffles me
>> what they were thinking when someone signed off on that.
>
>I assume the thinking was it looked a heck of a lot better than have a big
>open space between tick marks every 5 mph or having it really busy with tick
>marks every 1 mph. To me it seems very reasonable. You have tick marks every
>five mph where you really need them. I look at the 2.5 and 7.5 tick marks as
>half way between important points and things aren't messy with a bunch of
>tick marks that are meaningless. Think like this - if you are alittle over
>the 10x tick mark, you are doing 10x+1 mph. If you are a little under the
>10x+2.5 tick mark you are doing 10x+3 mph. A little under the 10X+5 tick
>mark and you are doing 10x+4mph, etc...... You can probably come close to
>the figuring out actual 1 mph increment without having a dial with so many
>marks it it unreadable. If the speedometer dial was smaller, then they
>probably would only have 5 mph increments. I can't imagine one big enough
>that 1 mph increments would be useful.
>
>What would you like - just 5 mph increments or 1 mph increments?
Neither. I would want 2mph.
<cewh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:xn0hxt6z...@reader.albasani.net...
>
>> There's no doubt speedometers are not exact, but that doesn't take away
>> from the sheer idiocy of that particular design. It still baffles me
>> what they were thinking when someone signed off on that.
>
>I assume the thinking was it looked a heck of a lot better than have a big
>open space between tick marks every 5 mph or having it really busy with tick
>marks every 1 mph. To me it seems very reasonable. You have tick marks every
>five mph where you really need them. I look at the 2.5 and 7.5 tick marks as
>half way between important points and things aren't messy with a bunch of
>tick marks that are meaningless. Think like this - if you are alittle over
>the 10x tick mark, you are doing 10x+1 mph. If you are a little under the
>10x+2.5 tick mark you are doing 10x+3 mph. A little under the 10X+5 tick
>mark and you are doing 10x+4mph, etc...... You can probably come close to
>the figuring out actual 1 mph increment without having a dial with so many
>marks it it unreadable. If the speedometer dial was smaller, then they
>probably would only have 5 mph increments. I can't imagine one big enough
>that 1 mph increments would be useful.
>
>What would you like - just 5 mph increments or 1 mph increments?
>Which looks better:
>
>http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/17/speedometer1.jpg/
>http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/269/speedometer2p.jpg/
>http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/256/speedometer3.jpg/
micky
May 7, 2012, 5:17:54 PM5/7/12
to
On Mon, 07 May 2012 15:31:34 -0400, micky <NONONO...@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
>BTW, you can calibrate your speedometer using the mile posts on most
>major highways. Well, I don't remember if interstates have them -- I
>think they do --, but state highways often do, sometimes a short green
>and white sign maybe even every tenth of a mile. Sometimes a short
>cement post with the numbers formed into the cement. This goes
>faster with a passenger helping, because when I'm alone, I keep
>getting distracted by the need to steer the car, etc. First I'd
>check the odometer. I did this 2 or 3 decades ago and it was
>accurate to within 20 or 40 feet over 5280 feet. That is, when
>odometer number changed or was the same height as the other numbers, I
>saw the mile post maybe 30 feet in front of me. Hard to tell at 60
>mph, but clearly, pretty good. Once the odometer is calibrated, you
>won't need the posts to calibrate t he speedometer.
I take this back. Measuring speed off the odometer would compound
any odometer error you have, and because it's hard to see from the
passenget seat, and because most are electronic rather than mechanical
now, it would require a lot of attention to know just when it changed.
OTOH, with rotaiting wheels in the odometer, one can tell how close it
is to the new value.
Better to use mileposts for both tests,. and cruise control, and
better to use a friend to watch the time and the distance. Or the
driver can call out when the milepost passes by.
wrote:
>BTW, you can calibrate your speedometer using the mile posts on most
>major highways. Well, I don't remember if interstates have them -- I
>think they do --, but state highways often do, sometimes a short green
>and white sign maybe even every tenth of a mile. Sometimes a short
>cement post with the numbers formed into the cement. This goes
>faster with a passenger helping, because when I'm alone, I keep
>getting distracted by the need to steer the car, etc. First I'd
>check the odometer. I did this 2 or 3 decades ago and it was
>accurate to within 20 or 40 feet over 5280 feet. That is, when
>odometer number changed or was the same height as the other numbers, I
>saw the mile post maybe 30 feet in front of me. Hard to tell at 60
>mph, but clearly, pretty good. Once the odometer is calibrated, you
>won't need the posts to calibrate t he speedometer.
any odometer error you have, and because it's hard to see from the
passenget seat, and because most are electronic rather than mechanical
now, it would require a lot of attention to know just when it changed.
OTOH, with rotaiting wheels in the odometer, one can tell how close it
is to the new value.
Better to use mileposts for both tests,. and cruise control, and
better to use a friend to watch the time and the distance. Or the
driver can call out when the milepost passes by.
Asbjørn
May 7, 2012, 5:24:13 PM5/7/12
to
"micky" <NONONO...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:fjegq752lknvl7fhg...@4ax.com...
65, and 67.5 mph. Big deal.
badgolferman
May 7, 2012, 8:31:15 PM5/7/12
to
glancing at the speedometer. I just want to look at it and see what
the speed is.
Having said that, picture 2 looks best to me. If the needle is between
the 60-65 then I know I'm somewhere between 60 and 65. Picture 1 is
misleading with the extra ticks.
Nothing I can do about it now. This is my fifth Toyota and none others
have ever looked like this. Toyota has always been known for sticking
to what works well unless there is a significant upside to changing. I
see no usefulness in this change.
C. E. White
May 8, 2012, 8:08:21 AM5/8/12
to
news:xn0hxthpl...@reader.albasani.net...
> Having said that, picture 2 looks best to me. If the needle is between
> the 60-65 then I know I'm somewhere between 60 and 65. Picture 1 is
> misleading with the extra ticks.
You can always take the cover off the speedometer and paint out the 2.5 and
7.5 marks:)
> Nothing I can do about it now. This is my fifth Toyota and none others
> have ever looked like this. Toyota has always been known for sticking
> to what works well unless there is a significant upside to changing. I
> see no usefulness in this change.
If having a few extra marks on the speedometer is the biggest problem with
your Toyota, you should be one happy camper. In my world it wouldn't even
make 20th place in my list of concerns with the RAV4s I find myself driving
on a semi-regularl basis (we have three of them in the family), I worry
about - poor seating position, wind noise, weird cruise control switch
location, ridiculous heater controls, poor cruise control operation, oil
consumption, cargo area rear seat latches that don't work, mediocre gas
mileage, harsh/noisy engine (4 cyl), rusty steel wheels, excessive brake pad
wear, spare tires that set off the low tire pressure light, difficult to
replace spare tire cover....all before I even started to care about the
graphics on the speedometer. I have to admit, I don't even remember what the
RAV4 speedometer looks like except it is round with numbers and I that have
to contort my hand through the steering wheel to reset the oil change
reminder button.
Ed
> Having said that, picture 2 looks best to me. If the needle is between
> the 60-65 then I know I'm somewhere between 60 and 65. Picture 1 is
> misleading with the extra ticks.
7.5 marks:)
> Nothing I can do about it now. This is my fifth Toyota and none others
> have ever looked like this. Toyota has always been known for sticking
> to what works well unless there is a significant upside to changing. I
> see no usefulness in this change.
your Toyota, you should be one happy camper. In my world it wouldn't even
make 20th place in my list of concerns with the RAV4s I find myself driving
on a semi-regularl basis (we have three of them in the family), I worry
about - poor seating position, wind noise, weird cruise control switch
location, ridiculous heater controls, poor cruise control operation, oil
consumption, cargo area rear seat latches that don't work, mediocre gas
mileage, harsh/noisy engine (4 cyl), rusty steel wheels, excessive brake pad
wear, spare tires that set off the low tire pressure light, difficult to
replace spare tire cover....all before I even started to care about the
graphics on the speedometer. I have to admit, I don't even remember what the
RAV4 speedometer looks like except it is round with numbers and I that have
to contort my hand through the steering wheel to reset the oil change
reminder button.
Ed
Jeff Strickland
May 8, 2012, 11:05:37 AM5/8/12
to
news:xn0hxt5m...@reader.albasani.net...
Since the error is greater than the increments, does it really matter what
the display says? You want to know generally what your speed is -- you are
going greater than 60 but less than 70, but the speed limit is only 35, so
does it really matter that the pencil is sharp or dull? If the speed limit
is X, and your indicated speed is X + 2 or X + 3, does it really matter
since the built in error is greater than that? You need to be going X +
10-ish to break the speed limit enough that anybody will care. Well, anybody
with a notepad and a radar gun will care. Your car is already designed to
tell you that you are doing 60 when the fact is you are only doing about 56.
The problems come when the car tells you that you are doing 60 when the fact
is that you are doing 65.
the display says? You want to know generally what your speed is -- you are
going greater than 60 but less than 70, but the speed limit is only 35, so
does it really matter that the pencil is sharp or dull? If the speed limit
is X, and your indicated speed is X + 2 or X + 3, does it really matter
since the built in error is greater than that? You need to be going X +
10-ish to break the speed limit enough that anybody will care. Well, anybody
with a notepad and a radar gun will care. Your car is already designed to
tell you that you are doing 60 when the fact is you are only doing about 56.
The problems come when the car tells you that you are doing 60 when the fact
is that you are doing 65.
badgolferman
May 9, 2012, 7:15:37 AM5/9/12
to
http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/2561/dialsr.jpg
Notice how the tachometer has the normal +2 increments whereas the
speedometer has +2.75 increments. That's just inconsistent and
misleading altogether regardless if one design looks better than the
other.
Jeff Strickland
May 9, 2012, 11:41:04 AM5/9/12
to
news:xn0hxvpw...@reader.albasani.net...
The speedo increments are 2.5, not 2.75. There is nothing strange going on
here. Well, maybe it's strange to you, but there is a marketing strategy
going on that the design engineers selected a face design that makes some
sort of sense to somebody that actually gets paid to decide such things.
Among the many considerations are the issues we have already discussed --
the error rate of the speedo does not necessitate the precision of the extra
tick marks -- and the space available to present the information that is
intended to be presented. If the speedo error is already 4mph, does it
really make sense to add a tick mark for 2mph increments when the same
information can be shown with 2.5mph increments? Why does the speedo go to
120 when the car can only do 90 going downhill?
Another consideration is that they (design engineers) know that people want
to see the needle point to a certain area when the car is doing 70. The
speedo has to start somewhere, and be someplace else at 70, this means there
is a given amount of space to indicate all of the information inbetween, and
the remaining space has to be divided to fill the space with information
that will never ever happen. All of this goes into making a decision on how
many tick marks to put on the face of the dial.
here. Well, maybe it's strange to you, but there is a marketing strategy
going on that the design engineers selected a face design that makes some
sort of sense to somebody that actually gets paid to decide such things.
Among the many considerations are the issues we have already discussed --
the error rate of the speedo does not necessitate the precision of the extra
tick marks -- and the space available to present the information that is
intended to be presented. If the speedo error is already 4mph, does it
really make sense to add a tick mark for 2mph increments when the same
information can be shown with 2.5mph increments? Why does the speedo go to
120 when the car can only do 90 going downhill?
Another consideration is that they (design engineers) know that people want
to see the needle point to a certain area when the car is doing 70. The
speedo has to start somewhere, and be someplace else at 70, this means there
is a given amount of space to indicate all of the information inbetween, and
the remaining space has to be divided to fill the space with information
that will never ever happen. All of this goes into making a decision on how
many tick marks to put on the face of the dial.
That Randy Guy
May 11, 2012, 2:18:20 PM5/11/12
to
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
0 new messages